Ethanol Pricing for Fuel

Where is the economy in all this? Ethanol is more expensive to make (when you consider the total cost burden across the board), a probable greater pollutant than gasoline when you add in the total "cost" to manufacture/transport, not friendly to our cars, and is less efficient (lowers your fuel economy).

I think you are right. Politics sold this when it looked good, but now that reality has set in, too much has already been invested to declare it a failure (or at least a poor idea).

agua_doc,

If the US were to purchase ethanol feedstock from Brazil, the American farmers would riot (Let them...)

Don't underestimate the power of the Farm/Agribiz lobby in Washington. They spent morre than $80 million last year "lobbying" to limit change in the "Farm Bill" under the Democratic Congress.

Add in the fact that we are in an election year, there isn't a high probability for meaningful change.

===================================================================================

Just my $0.02...

You guys are not some of the ones that cry when they move your jobs to other countries and complain about cheap imports are you?

Actually, I am in favor of free trade as long as it is on a level playing field; however, I never have believed that it makes sense to eliminate high paying jobs in the US by shipping the jobs overseas and expecting Americans to be able to pay for all the products you ship in when they dont have the wage to pay for them. A country's economic prosperity is directly tied to the amount of goods it produces. If you dont produce much, you lose.

What is the price of gasoline/diesel in the USA today? Also what is the amount of tax that you are paying per gallon?

Here in the UK it is $11 per gallon of gaoline and $12.5 per gallon of diesel.

The tax we pay on these fuels is included, and stands at 67%

Spencer.

If you are paying 67% tax, it sounds like it is time for another revolution, this time in England instead of the colonies... Stop bitching about excessive taxes and start working to change them.

The tarrifs on etanol and subsidies are there to encourage US industries to develop the ability produce our own stocks of fuel. The US has had it with being held hostage by a bunch of towel headed freaks just because they happen to live where there is a supply of energy. As to the world food supply being out of ballance, the farmers in the US have been feeding the world for around 100 years without any helpfull "advice" from you. They don't need any now.

If you were doing any reading on the topic you would have learned that the amont of energy necessary to produce ethanol is marginally less - at best - than the energy contained in the ethanol produced. So there is no net gain in energy self sufficiency. Ethanol isn't going to do this. Back to the drawing board. Maybe a little conservation would go a long way - oops, don't mention that in the conspicious consumption economy.....

question -

what would be your take on using solar, wind, hydro, or wave energy to produce cellulosic ethanol?

absolutely. although hydro is well exploited and pretty messy in general. tidal flow might be one hydro that could be used.

There is another company that has just announced a genetically modified bacteria that can turn sugar into biodiesel. That takes a lot less energy than even the standard sugar-to-ethanol processes.

The problem is that, by distorting the biofuel market with subsidies for corn-to-ethanol all the other possibly better technologies lag. For example, when the Chevy volt becomes available in 2010 I should be able to get the economic payback of a 10kW wind mill down to maybe 10 years and stop paying ~$450 a month in commuting fuel for two vehicles. But since the subsidies for E85 vehicles and ethanol are distorting the market I'll have to wait two more years. Dumb, huh? And that's just one person....

sounds good. I guess I'm just hopeful that the eventual solution (if is a liquid fuel of some sort) is one that can be retrofitted to the millions of vehicles already in use today without upsetting the auto infrastructure apple cart - aka what would happen if all oil and gasoline went away tomorrow?

thanks for your 'energy'

Jim

Cellulosic Ethanol seems to be a much better use of already wasted bio mass than producing corn based - across the board - yet BOTH the farmers and the oil barons would squeal - and then there is the 'big picture' problem of changing the underlying automotive infrastructures to deal with the cleaner burning ethanol tearing up engines quicker etc.

Seems like somewhere in the last year someone was asking - what if we all banded together and started an INDUSTRY -

a couple more weeks . . .

Jim

The first time I noticed the use of ethanol in gasoline, it was listed on the pump, and the rationale was for environmental, air quality reasons. Is it not true in the US that we're required by law to use ethanol in gasoline for air quality reasons, but only in designated air pollution problem areas?

Ethanol was substituted for MTBE. As it turns out MTBE did have a positive impact on air pollution and actually significantly increased the fuel supply. (the down side was that when gas station owners allowed their fuel tanks to leak, MTBE leached into the water supply).When congress banned MTBE, the fuel supply shrank, prices went up, and ethanol was subsutituted. Unfortunately Ethanol is a poor substitute for MTBE.

When has congress ever solved any problem? Solving a problem would put them or the special interest they represent out of business.

Using corn for energy is a poor choice. The unintended consequence was the shift of acerage to meet the demand for corn (and also to cash in on the new demand) which in turn shorted other grains. This had ripple effects through the entire grain complex as well as livestock. Cattle and hogs were moved to the feed lots sooner than normal and were moved through the feed lots faster than normal to avoid the increased cost of feed while in the lots finishing (fattening up). Short term this depressed the price of both hogs and cattle, both on the hoof and hanging. Then when the cycle came back around there were not enough cattle and hogs coming in behind them which pushed the price up and over where it would have been in a normal market.

Along with the tarraf on ethenol there is also a huge tarraf on sugar from Brazil. I think it would probably be better to import sugar than alcohol because in transit the alcohol would likely soak up a lot of water and would either be useless or would require reprocessing to seperate the water.

The tarrafs are supposed to be protecting the sugar and alcohol producers which it may be doing but in protecting them the buying public gets stuck.

We should not be persuing alcohol if we can only make it from virgin feedstock be it corn or sugar. If we could make it from a waste product or from a new source then there would be no impact on the food markets. So far making alcohol from grasses and other cellulose feedstocks has only had limited success. Brazill made a commitment a few decades ago to end it's use of imported petroleum and in doing so transfered the bulk of it's sugar cane production to producing alcohol.

Similarly there is bio diesel. Bio diesel made from new stocks - new soy bean oils it removes beans and bean oil from the food suplies and is quite costly directly and indirectly. If the bio diesel is made from used fryer oil there is no impact on the food suplies.

Back to congress - yes, we are where we are because of the actions of congress. Politicians discovered long ago that the key to getting elected and reelected is to bring home the bacon as it were. Programs translate into votes. No politician is going to go into Iowa and talk against farm subsidies and using corn for ethanol. By the same token the politicians are applauded when they are seen protecting agriculture and one of the biggest ways they do that is through tarrafs.

I for one am tired of being beat over the head with my carbon footprint and everything has to be green.

Travis

I have a question that comes to mind in all of this mess. I may be in error, but I feel there is general agreement among most scientists and engineers that the whole ethanol issue is a bad idea, so why not do something about it? That can only happen by affecting the Congress and Senators that are pushing for these laws to the detriment of the public. Obviously, these people are being lobbied by "deep pockets" organizations and PACs to pass and to keep these laws in force. And obviously, individuals don't pull much weight when it comes to the legislators, BUT they do have to be elected and will be back to the trough shortly (at least every few years). So, what about the scientists and engineers in the US starting to become politically active and working to get these laws changed or getting rid of these corrupt politicians? Does anyone know if Internet-based petitions are legal? Would it be a practical means to get the ball rolling? We need to do something or we will all go down the tubes together.

Thoughts or suggestions?

The problem is not limited to just the corn/fuel issue. Remember during a state of the union when President Bush mentioned using switch grass to produce alcohol? The reaction in the media was to ridicule him for the idea... and now cellulose based alcohol production would be a much better solution (if you are determined to make cars run on alcohol) to making alcohol. But the farm lobby will not sit still for that because switch grass can be grown in the median of the highways and harvested by road crews. The moment politicians realized that the key to getting elected was to bring home projects and other goodies to their district it was all over. Then, to further seal the deal the moment the electorate pitted one politician against another one to see which one would promise the most handouts there was no turning back.

As long as so many people are happy to go through life with their hand stuck out this will never end.

It is clear that diverting corn (and to a lesser extent soybeans for biodiesel, though a lot of biodiesel is made from used cooking oil which is good compared to using new bean oil) into the energy complex was a mistake with a host of unintended consequenses but this is typical of how government works. They are most often judged only on their good intentions regardless of the outcome. Look at how Social Security turned out as well as the Welfare system. Social Security was established to assure people could retire and be asured they would not have to eat cat food. Soon after it was created people began to see Social Security not as a safety net but a hamock and a means to a full retirement. For many people early on it provided just that. The return on the dollar put into the system was very high. As time goes on there are more drawing from the system than putting into it. This is a pyramid scheme make no mistake. If you, me or anyone other than a politician started to run an identical system we'd be thrown in jail for running a pyramid scheme.

The whole "war on poverty" has been a desaster but the intention was good (though I personaly don't even think the intention was good). The unintended consequence of busting up the family and creating generation after generation of people who are satisfied with living on the system has institutionalized poverty. In reality the politicians love the self prepetuating problem. The Welfare system has been a success to those who advocate the redistribution of wealth and also the control that comes with being the one who does the redistributing.

Too many people take satisfaction when the "rich" are taxed but in reality overtaxing the "rich" does not help anyone. I like rich people. I work for a rich guy. I want to be a rich guy. Too many people have bought into the notion that it is fair to take a low percent in taxes from those on the lower income scale and more and more from those on the high end of the income scale. They rationalize it by saying that the "rich" can afford it. The last I looked 10% is 10% regardless of who it comes from. A flat tax or better yet a consumption tax would be infinatly better than the system we have now, but few politicians are going to advocate anything which does not stick it to the "rich".

I don't know how to change the system. The mindset of the politicians and that of the electorate would have to change at once. This is why they call Social Security the Third Rail - you as a politician touch it, you as a politician die.

For many years I have wanted to get a movement going where thousands and thousands of people sent in their tax returns to the IRS in a washing machine or refrigerator box full of styrofoam peanuts. That would wreak havoc to be sure. It would also be the express lane to an audit too.

John Galt had the right idea.

Travis

doc:

This link, which has been previously posted but received little attention, offers the nearest I've seen to the ultimate solution. I don't know what the processing overhead is but, unless it is exorbitant, here is the answer:

http://www.empivot.com/watch.php?mdid=596

Some people are working on it but we seem to be concentrating on negative thoughts. I'd be interested in some thoughtful comments.

Best regards.

DickL

cool stuff - thanks -

Interesting and maybe it has potential. The inventor has at least carried out enough research to make a demonstration facility. Of course, if it became a major source of fuel, then their would be a run on the pond-scum market.

Let me offer a solution. 1. use high yielding non-food cellulose crops that can produce 5000 gallons per acre for ethanol production and pay the farmers 30 cents per gallon to grow them ($1500 per acre). Using Infinite Renewable Energy, Inc.'s low temperature low pressure mixed microbe process will give you 200 proof ethanol for around 75 cents per gallon, and uses the lignin residues to burn to make electricity, cook the mash, and recover the ethanol from the extracting solvent. Now you have the ability to sell the fuel for $1.25 - $1.50 per gallon and still make a decent return without the need for government subsidies. 2. The farmer has demonstrated that he has no concern for the hungry in the world, only his pocketbook. So the company will have to enforce a food/fuel/fallow cropping cycle, allowng the farmer to grow that $1500 crop on only 20% of his cropland without restriction. Above 20%, he will be required to plant an acre of food crop for every acre of fuel crop added. The fuel price above is too low to support the use food crops for fuel, they do not get enough gallons per acre. That will effectively drive corn out of the fuel tank and back into the food chain. 3. Only half of the ethanol produced by any given facility will be from farm crops for which the farmer will be paid, the other half will be from nuisance vegetation normally taken to landfill and charged a tipping fee. Tipping fees will be collected by the ethanol plant for this source of feedstock to subsidize the price to the farmer for his food crops. The fuel company thus will also be in the food business, providing a stable price for both food and fuel, while providing for American jobs and saving the Amercan taxpayer the unnecessary expense of farm and energy subsidies. And if the fuel company makes a few ducats for its efforts, so should it be.

interesting - how do we get a system of change in place (assuming the math works for everybody) in place to enable a major infrastructure change like that started?

The first hurdle to get over is getting that kind of yield out of cellulose feed stock for alcohol production. I don't think it is nearly that high yet.

Why not use the highway median to grow the feed stock? This would not take any acerage away for other uses. Since you are for the most part talking about using weeds (switch grass, etc) why not have the highway department cut and harvest it? They already mow the medians, why not put it in wind rows and bail it too? This way there is no impact on the food crops and the farmers can continue to concentrate on food crops.

The only problem with this is it places the government in the business of producing the grass and fuel. I have little faith in the government producing anything at market prices. Rather than farmers or the highway department possibly private industry could handle growing and harvesting it, but I still like the idea of using the highway median.

Travis

Why not have the state agricultural and highway experts work together on developing the best grasses to grow and harvest in highway medians and other right of way areas, and allow the state to harvest and convert the same to provide biofuels to operate the state's vehicles, school busses, tractors, and other equipment. We are already paying for the mowing and planting of wild flower plots in these areas.

This way the state would not be in competition with private businesses, in the same way that the state prisons have industries to provide for their own uniforms, furniture, etc to save tax money, without harming private enterprise.

This would save millions of dollars for taxpayers, and would allow the state to develop the refineries necessary to make biofuel conversion cost effective. Ths would also demonstrate for private farmers that growing biofuel grass as a crop can be both viable and profitable.

This has been a very interesting thread.

I live in a US state that mandates at least 10% ethanol in all gasoline. There are more corn ethanol plants than the corn harvests can supply. When it all started, it seemed to be a way for the US to 'grow our own fuel', but I agree now that it is trading food for fuel.

The silver lining as I see it, is that we have in place the ethanol production infrastructure that would be readily adaptive to a new bio-product as soon as it is either available or it's conversion process is developed. I hope it happens soon.

Politics as usual.

Tariffs should make the competition more equal, not protect our industries from competition. The free trade policy on our part and not on other countries parts has been an economic disaster. Imports should sell at or just barely below the prices of our own products. That would take a lot of fine-tuning, but it would move a lot of jobs back home out of pure convenience. Letting the farm lobby insist that ethanol be made from corn and practically forbidding any other crop to be used and then getting the politicians to make it law is the type of crooked politics we get [mostly from one party, but the other party is guilty too, after all when they are in charge (seldom) they don't fix it]. Remember there are vested interests in using corn, fertilizer companies, seed companies, farmers, farm equipment makers and oil companies, to name a few.

There are many other plants which could be grown, but the farmers only know corn and are not willing to change. The subsidies go only to corn and not to any other type of plants used to make ethanol. There are many plants which could be used, that grow where corn crops are marginal. Switchgrass is only one example. Sorghum is high in sugar and grows in drier conditions and in poorer soils. Use some sugar cane DNA to raise the sugar content and you probably could produce more ethanol per acre. Jerusalem artichokes are another plant which has been mentioned. What about the oil content of greasewood, is it higher than other plants?

What about using solar power for producing ethanol instead of coal or LNG? Or will the oil and coal companies lobby to prevent that? How many politicians can be bought by industry as well as environmental lobbies, if not in money, in influence and votes delivered? Seems we need a scorecard just to know which politicians are the least objectionable, since none of them will ever be as perfect as we are or want them to be.